Chemical Industry Rebuts "Secret Chemical" Report as Erroneous

As mentioned yesterday, the Environmental Working Group (EWG), a non-profit advocacy group based in Washington DC, issued a report suggesting that many chemicals on the market today are "secret." The basis for this is that the identity of these chemicals is protected by confidential business information provisions under the existing TSCA chemical control law. On Monday the main chemical industry trade association offered a response in which it claimed that EWG misrepresented the CBI provisions.

According to ACC's news release available on its web site,

"[t]here are no 'secret' chemicals on the market. In those cases where a specific chemical identity has been claimed confidential - in order to protect the significant investment of time, money and human resources that went into the research and development process - the manufacturing and use of that substance must always fully comply with the requirements of the law."

The EWG report and the ACC response demonstrates that while both groups, along with most other stakeholders, are in general agreement on the need for TSCA reform and the basic principles of modernization, there are still some fundamental differences on many of the details. In this case, the advocacy groups feel that the more information available to the public and the more transparency the better. The industry, on the other hand, must deal with the fact that competitors can free ride off of the research expenditures of others and thus have a need to keep some information to themselves.

The key seems to be in developing a system that gives confidence that chemicals are adequately tested for safety prior to being put on the market. If the public can be convinced that the process protects them, then they will be less concerned if there are confidentiality protections for companies. But if the public feels that the process is insufficient to protect them from chemicals because those chemicals have not been demonstrated to be safe, then the public will want to see more information to allow them to make choices on their end.

The saga continues. I expect there to be quite a bit of activity in the next few weeks and months as Congress leads up to introducing a bill in the first quarter of this year.

Environmental Working Group Releases "Secret Chemicals" Report

On a note related to my post of yesterday, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) has released a report called "Off the Books: Industry's Secret Chemicals." In the report they call TSCA "an extraordinarily ineffective law."

EWG is a non-profit organization founded in 1993 by Ken Cook and Richard Wiles, the latter whom is a co-author on the current report. EWG's mission "to use the power of public information to protect public health and the environment." In the fall of 2009 the organization sponsored a widely attended stakeholder "dialogue" that included Lisa Jackson and Steve Owens from EPA, the heads of many industry trade associations, the advocacy community, and other interested stakeholders.

In their report, EWG is quite critical of the current system under TSCA and feels that industry has abused the privilege of claiming confidential business information. The report also faults EPA for allowing so many - 17,000 of the 83,000 on the TSCA Inventory - to be kept "secret" from the public, which according to EWG is "a de-facto witness protection program for chemicals," a large number of which are "used everyday in consumer products."

With advocacy groups seemingly intent on pressing the issue, I reiterate my belief that the "new TSCA" will significantly restrict the amount and type of CBI that companies may claim for new chemicals. The burden will also shift to industry to prove that their CBI claims are legitimate, rather than putting the onus on resource-strapped EPA to make an effort to reject claims. Whether this is a good or bad thing will have to wait until the details are worked out.

"Secret Chemicals" a Target of TSCA Chemical Control Reform?

In this space I have been tracking the ongoing efforts of the current Congress to modernize the 33-year old Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which is the primary law governing the regulation of chemicals in the United States. One of the issues that hasn't received too much press yet is the question of Confidential Business Information (CBI), which advocacy groups like to refer to as "secret chemicals."

The current TSCA gives companies the right to claim certain information on their new chemicals as "confidential." This was designed to protect companies from having to disclose information to their competitors that would effectively eliminate the advantage of developing a new chemical. Without this provision it makes no sense for a company to spend millions on research and development, only to have their competitors just use their information to copy them.

However, EPA and advocacy groups have argued that industry has taken advantage of the provision to keep not only the names of the chemicals secret but even such things as who makes it, which has occasionally led to some emergency response problems and safety research limitations. Steve Owens, EPA Assistant Administrator for the Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances ended the confidentiality protection for over 500 chemicals within a week after taking the job in July of last year. His reason? Because "people...saw that they can claim virtually anything as confidential and get away with it."

So it seems highly likely that there will be some provision in "the new TSCA" (or Kid Safe) when it is finally reintroduced that will restrict the amount and type of information that can be claimed as confidential. Also, it is highly likely that there will be a switch in how confidentiality is decided. In the past it was EPA that had to decide the claim should be refused, but EPA really didn't have the resources to do that so pretty much anything that was claimed was accepted. In the new TSCA I would expect that the notifier would have to provide some proof that the claim is necessary to protect its business.

Scientists Need to Talk to the Public - It's Time to Speak Up!!

So says Chris Mooney in an opinion piece in the Washington Post this weekend. Mooney is co-author with marine scientist Sheril Kirshenbaum of "Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future." Mooney warns us the the deniers of science, for example those that deny climate change and evolution, are highly organized and experienced in getting their message out. Even if it is false. Or perhaps especially because it is false.

Scientists do their science in labs and the field and communicate through journals and scientific conferences with their peers, but traditionally have left the communication to the public of that science to others. If it was communicated to the public at all. It doesn't help that scientists often distrust the media's ability to get it right. According to Mooney, "[r]ather than spurring greater efforts at communication, such mistrust and resignation have further motivated some scientists to avoid talking to reporters and going on television."

He further notes that scientists "no longer have that luxury. After all, global-warming skeptics suffer no such compunctions." And with "traditional science journalists who have long sought to bridge the gap between scientists and the public" being let go by the struggling media outlets, "[i]f scientists don't take a central communications role, nobody else with the same expertise and credibility will do it for them."

Quoting Scripps Institution of Oceanography marine biologist Jeremy Jackson, who teaches a summer course that introduces young scientists to the media, blogging and even filmmaking:

"Traditionally, scientists have been loathe to interact with the media," Jackson said in a recent interview. But in his class, "the students understand that good science is only the beginning to solving environmental problems, and that nothing will be accomplished without more effective communication to the general public."

So Mooney suggests, "[s]cientists need not wait for former vice presidents to make hit movies to teach the public about their fields -- they must act themselves." To teach scientists how to do this, he recommends two recent books: Randy Olson's "Don't Be Such a Scientist: Talking Substance in an Age of Style" and Cornelia Dean's "Am I Making Myself Clear?: A Scientist's Guide to Talking to the Public."

Here is my earlier review of Mooney and Kirshenbaum's Unscientific America. Ironically, I just finished reading Dean's "Am I Making Myself Clear?" and a few months ago read Olson's "Don't be Such a Scientist."

Other scientific book reviews can be found here.

EPA Ready to Propose New Rules for Nanotechnology

Because of the less than thrilling results from the voluntary Nanoscale Materials Stewardship Program initiative begun during the Bush presidency, the USEPA is planning to propose a new rule requiring manufacturers of nanomaterials to submit data on production, exposure and available safety information.

The rule, developed under Section 8 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) will be designed to “establish reporting requirements for certain nanoscale materials.” It would require manufacturers to provide information on “production volume, methods of manufacture and processing, exposure and release information, and available health and safety data." EPA would then evaluate the information and consider appropriate action under TSCA to reduce any risk to human health or the environment. Look for this Section 8 rule by June 2010.

But EPA isn't stopping there. They also plan a second rule, this one under the authority of Section 4 of TSCA, which would require manufacturers to study adverse health effects of multi-walled carbon nanotubes and nanoscale clays and alumina, which are widely used nanomaterials. The Section 4 test rule is expected sometime around November 2010.

As with the recent use of "action plans" for selected chemicals, the move signals that EPA is aggressively using what it sees as existing authority to regulate chemicals under TSCA. In the past the Agency was hesitant to push the envelope, most noticeably after a 10-year battle to ban asbestos was lost in court over the burdens of technical proof. However, the new environment is more of cooperation rather than antagonism between EPA and industry, and all parties seem to be in agreement that TSCA needs to be modernized. With that inevitability in mind, EPA is less likely to be challenged on attempts to use the data they have in-house to take action they feel is necessary.

USEPA Issues Action Plans for Four Chemicals of Concern

For the first time EPA has used TSCA's existing authority to list chemicals that "may present an unreasonable risk of injury to health and the environment." Following up on Steve Owens' and Lisa Jackson's "commitment to strengthen and reform chemical management, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today announced a series of actions on four chemicals raising serious health or environmental concerns, including phthalates."

The four chemicals are:

Phthalates
Short-chain chlorinated paraffins
Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs)
Perfluorinated chemicals (including PFOA)

The action plans summarize available hazard, exposure, and use information; outline the risks that each chemical may present; and identify the specific steps the Agency intends to address those concerns.

The actions announced include:

· Adding phthalates and PBDE chemicals to the concern list.

· Beginning a process that could lead to risk reductions actions under section 6 of TSCA for several phthalates, short-chain chlorinated paraffins, and perfluorinated chemicals.

· Reinforcing the DecaBDE phase-out – which will take place over three years – with requirements to ensure that any new uses of PBDEs are reviewed by EPA prior to returning to the market.

EPA expects to issue additional action plans every four months. This and further steps taken by EPA indicate a desire by the Agency to fully utilize the existing authority within TSCA while Congress decides when and how to introduce a modernization of how we regulate chemicals in the US.

More information on EPA’s legislative reform principles and a fact sheet on the complete set of actions on the four chemicals can be found on EPA's web site.

Glowing Frogs and Other Cool Ways to Detect Pollution

Tadpoles that glow when they encounter pollution? Could it be?

It seems so.

Research conducted by University of Wyoming Professor Paul Johnson and others was recently published in the journal, Environmental Science & Technology, and highlighted the case of the African clawed frog, or more accurately its tadpoles, which can be genetically modified using the genes from jellyfish so that they glow. Not all the time of course (even tadpoles have to sleep, I think). But scientists have demonstrated that these modified tadpoles can "light up" in response to a pollutant, and can even discriminate between several chemicals at the same time.

More information can be found on the University of Wyoming web site. The article is available at http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es9008954?journalCode=esthag (subscription required).

Johnson hopes that this technique can be used in the detection of pollutants in the environment.

Consumer Product Safety Commission Names Phthalate Advisory Panel Members

Phthalates are big. Well, at least from a public health policy perspective. These chemicals are the most commonly used plasticizers worldwide, being used to soften PVC and other products. One of the biggest concerns by regulators and activists is the use of phthalates in toys. A few days ago the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) in the United States appointed seven independent scientists to serve on a Chronic Hazard Advisory Panel (CHAP) to assess the potential health risks from exposure to phthalates and phthalate substitutes.

The CHAP is required under the provisions of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act, signed into law by then-President George W. Bush in 2008. The specific charge of the CHAP is to examine the potential effects on children's health of phthalates and any alternatives to phthalates as used in children's toys and child care articles.

The seven scientists appointed from a list nominated by the President of the National Academy of Sciences are:

Chris Gennings, Ph.D.
Medical College of Virginia

Russell Hauser, M.D., Sc.D., M.P.H.
Harvard School of Public Health

Holger M. Koch, Ph.D.
Ruhum University of Bochum, Germany

Andreas Kortenkamp, Ph.D.
University of London

Paul J. Lioy, Ph.D.
Robert Wood Johnson Medical School

Philip E. Mirkes, Ph.D.
Washington State University, Vancouver

Bernard A. Schwetz, D.V.M., Ph.D.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (retired)

Industry Looking to Confab with Advocacy Groups on TSCA Chemical Control Reform

As TSCA reform becomes more and more inevitable, chemical industry trade associations are increasing looking to negotiate with environmental and health advocacy groups. The goal is to seek agreement on key issues prior to the release of the bill that is expected out of Congress in the next few months (or even weeks). Industry's point of view was reiterated in a press conference held on December 16th at the offices of the American Chemistry Council (ACC).

Mike Walls of ACC said that while there is general agreement on the need for TSCA reform and the overall principles, there are still many issues in the details that need to be resolved. And this time leading up to introduction of the bill is when it is important to "engage in stakeholder dialogue." ACC would like to be able to come to agreement on major provisions of the bill before it is introduced.

Environmental groups appear to have a different view. They look to the bill as a starting point for negotiations. Specifically, they expect Senator Frank Lautenberg to introduce some (probably updated) version of the Kid Safe Chemical Act that he has introduced twice in the past (both times the bill never even received debate in committee). The updated bill is expected to shift the onus for proving chemicals safe to the manufacturers, rather than the previous requirement that EPA must prove chemicals to be unsafe. Something that was hard to do since TSCA doesn't require that data needed to make that assessment even be provided to EPA.

So the dance continues. Both industry and advocacy groups have been putting resources into providing information and input to the legislative process, working with staffs of Lautenberg in the Senate and Waxman in the House. It is expected that Congress will hold 2 or 3 hearings before the bill is introduced, which is likely to happen in the first few months of 2010 with some fanfare. Look for window of opportunity in between the health care and climate change debates.

The Well Disarmed Skeptic - How Climate Change Denialists Use Front Groups to Lie About the Science

Climate denialists like to argue that they are "well armed" to deny the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change. And in some respects they are, because these non-science free market lobbying groups have a long history of setting up fake front organizations and now blogger networks to saturate the public domain with intentional misinformation. They did it to deny that smoking caused cancer, that CFCs affected the ozone hole, that smokestacks in Ohio caused acid rain in New England, and that killer smogs were the result of pollution. In all cases the denialists were wrong, the scientists were right, and policy-makers finally made decisions that helped to fix the problems. In fact, some of the current climate change denialists are the very same people and lobbying groups that denied the earlier science.

Some of the recent articles here on Gather have suggested the following as sources of denialist misinformation. Too bad they aren't scientific at all. For example:

The Climate Skeptics Handbook: This is a comic book written by Joanna Nova, a performance artist in Australia, who has a deal with Heartland Institute to produce and distribute this comical presentation of false information. One of the handy tips is to whine of "personal attacks" whenever a real scientist rebuts the shoddy "science." So demonstrations that they are wrong are somehow made into "dismiss and demean" (which is a transparent attempt to deflect from the fact that they are wrong). Besides not being a scientist, Nova is hooked up with David Evans, an electrical engineer who also writes for the Australian version of Heartland Institute and yet has done no science research. The two of them sell software designed to speculate in gold. No climate science research or experience at all for either of them.

Climate Depot: This is a blog run by Marc Morano for the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, a non-science free market lobbying group. This is the same Marc Morano who was James Inhofe's hit man when Inhofe was Chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee in the Senate (before the Democrats got the majority). Morano has zero science training of any kind. For Inhofe he compiled through Google searching a "list" of "climate skeptics" that consisted solely of blog clips, which he helped orchestrate. Besides his scam with Inhofe, Morano was the Washington attack dog for his old boss Rush Limbaugh. Morano also was the one who distributed and pushed the Swiftboating of both Senator John Kerry and Representative John Murtha, disparaging both war veterans for their service. Morano never served in the military. Despite having no science training at all, Morano is one of several hired writers listed as a "global warming expert" by Heartland Institute.

Icecap: Icecap is a blog that takes stories from other blogs and online news sources and disseminates them to their network of denialist bloggers and willing lackeys like those on Gather who further plagiarize their posts. It is run by Joseph D'Aleo, a retired TV meteorologist and the first director of meteorology at the weather channel. While he was a meteorologist and businessman, he never did any climate research (TV weather is not climate science). D'Aleo is also associated with the Heartland Institute. Icecap intentionally sets up its web page to blur the lines between stories so that it can discount anything that is actual climate science by attaching a denialist story to it. It even writes fake headlines to dismiss stories that don't support their view.

CO2 Science: This blog is basically the same disinformation blog series that keeps changing to keep ahead of its discredited stories and founders. It's run by Sherwood and Craig Idso (and another Idso or two), who are well-known for setting up fake front groups for such organizations as ExxonMobil and the Western Fuels Association. The goal of the blog is to distribute disinformation on carbon dioxide like "carbon dioxide is taken up by plants so it can't be bad in the upper atmosphere" [how many plants do you see growing in the upper atmosphere] and "global warming is good for us" [unless you live along the coasts that will be flooded, the interior areas that will become dust bowls, etc.]. Not surprisingly, Craig Idso is also associated with the Heartland Institute.

SPPI: Another front group for industry free market lobbyists. Started by Robert Ferguson, a non-scientist (with a BA in history and MA in legislative affairs) who set up SPPI after also serving as director of another front group CSSP. Both are heavily funded by ExxonMobil and associated with free market lobbying groups. Ferguson was a speaker at Heartland Institute's denialist marketing event in 2009, but is mostly known for his 26 years working for Republican congressmen on the hill. The site relies mostly on the rantings of another non-scientist, Lord Monckton, who was a former journalist and adviser to the conservative party in Britain. He has zero science background.

So, some common themes arise from these sites denialists and their lackeys like to cite as sources for "climate science."

- Most are run by people with no scientific training at all, and none by anyone who has ever done any climate research

- Most have some connection to the conservative party (conservative = like the status quo)

- All are associated with the Heartland Institute or the Australian counterpart to the Heartland Institute, the non-science free market lobbying group whose mandate is to protect their industry membership from regulations (the kind of regulations that the science says are needed)

- All are not even close to being valid sources for science

Keep in mind that these are the "experts" that denialists and their lackeys put forth. This is the best they can do - free market associated front groups.

In the end, it comes down to whether we should listen to the scientists who study the science, or the non-science free market lobbying groups whose mission and long history is to deny any science that might lead to policies they don't like.

The answer is pretty clear.

Companies Agree to Stop Using DecaBDE Flame Retardant in Consumer Products

The US EPA has reached an agreement with three manufacturers of the brominated flame retardant, decabromodiphenylether (DBDE or DecaBDE) to voluntarily phase out its production within three years. Chemtura, Albemarle and ICL Industrial Products will stop making DecaBDE, which is used in consumer electronics (e.g., computers), furniture, textiles, and other items as a flame retardant.

Two other related chemicals, PentaBDE and OctaBDE, were banned previously but DecaBDE was assumed to be too big to be toxic. Subsequent research has proved this assumption to be questionable, with DecaBDE found to be a potential carcinogen as well as toxic to the nervous system. It also is persistent in the environment and has been found in the blood of humans, including in the recently released biomonitoring report by the Center for Disease Control.

The three companies agreed to end production, importation and use of the chemical in all consumer products by December 2012. That would be followed by a full ban a year later. Several US states, other countries and the EU have already banned all three forms of the flame retardant. The one limitation of the agreement is that a fourth manufacturer, based in Japan, did not sign the agreement and thus as of this writing plans to continue to export products containing DecaBDE to the US.

This last fact is another reason why the current chemical control law in the US, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) is deemed insufficient by virtually all stakeholders and is expected to be "modernized" in 2010.

European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) Ready for 2010 Chemical Registration Deadlines - They Hope!

The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) in Helsinki, Finland, is working hard to get prepared for the expected onslaught of registration dossiers that will be submitted in 2010. ECHA is putting some contingency plans into place as the first deadline for registrations - for high volume and high hazard chemicals - comes due on November 30, 2010.

While that seems like a long time from now, it isn't. Companies have been working hard for the last 2 years trying to get organized and coordinate with other companies that manufacture or import the same chemicals into Europe.

Two of the contingencies are a "back-up" IT system and a task force to monitor SIEF activity.

Currently all legal entities are required to submit their dossiers through ECHA's online REACH-IT system. Given that the system became overloaded and hard to access during the pre-registration period in 2008, where 2.4 million pre-registrations were received when only about 400,000 were expected, a back-up system is probably a good idea. ECHA has invited bids from three consortia for a contract to develop the back-up in the event of a total collapse of its REACH-IT system.

Another contingency is to appoint a team to monitor the activity of lead registrants and substance information exchange forums (SIEFs). SIEFs are the forums mandated by REACH in which all manufacturers, importers, and "only representatives" are required to work together to share data so as to limit unnecessary animal testing. Once hired and trained, the team will assess various scenarios ranging from a low number of submissions to a very high number of submissions. They will also be empowered to deal with any problems arising in the SIEFs that might endanger successful registrations by the deadlines. Given the ongoing problems many SIEFs have had getting organized and forming consortia, a little help from ECHA is likely to be very much appreciated by industry. In fact, industry has been pushing for more help in meeting deadlines for a long time.

Another welcome sight was last week's release of much anticipated "technical completeness check tool." The TCC tool will enable registrants who have prepared the data in the IUCLID5 database to run the same automated check that ECHA will run once the registration dossier is submitted. To date, many of the early registration dossiers have failed to pass the completeness check, which automatically rejects dossiers even for minor deviations. Pre-checking with the TCC should mean most dossiers will pass the ECHA check quickly, and minimize any bottle-necking as companies find that everyone else is also trying to submit their dossiers at the last minute.

Debbie Edwards Steps Down from Office of Pesticide Programs

Those in the pesticide registration business have heard of Debbie Edwards, Director of the Office of Pesticide Programs at the USEPA since April 2007. A few days ago she announced her retirement, which is seen as a loss by industry because she was considered to be reasonable and effective in moving decision-making forward. The following is the email that is being distributed widely around EPA and the regulated community.

From: Debbie Edwards/DC/USEPA/US

To: OPP ALL

Cc: xxxxxxxxxx

Date: 12/17/2009 04:53 PM

Subject: A message from the OPP Office Director


Dear Colleagues,


I have decided to retire from Federal Service to pursue other interests and to spend more time in Latin America. My last day in the office will be January 14, 2010. I have worked in the EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs since November of 1985 and have enjoyed a very fulfilling career. The work of OPP is challenging, always interesting and, in my view, of great importance to our society. I feel fortunate to have had the opportunity to work closely with so many of you over the years in meeting and advancing our environmental protection goals. I leave with mixed emotions, as I believe it is a very exciting time to be in OPP. Through your efforts, the program is well on its way to increasing transparency; addressing long-standing environmental justice and children's health issues within the farmworker community; focusing greater attention on ecological risks and endangered species protection; bringing IPM practices to urban environments, including schools and day care centers; implementing the endocrine disrupter screening program; transitioning to 21st century toxicology and decreased animal testing; addressing human health risks associated with spray drift and volatilization; developing a framework for regulation of pesticide products that contain nanomaterials; more effectively incorporating human epidemiology data into the risk assessment process, and much more. I am confident you will continue to bring all of your energy, enthusiasm and expertise to bear in these challenging areas and that the EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs will continue to be a world leader in pesticide regulation. I wish all of you the very best, both personally and professionally, in the years to come.


Debbie

Thomas Friedman and the Earth Race - How to Combat Climate Change and Use the Market to Build a New Energy Future

For those who know of Thomas L. Friedman, they know that he is an award winning writer and journalist, and also someone who knows more about the world than most folks. His best-selling book The World is Flat is just one of several books in which he shows his keen insight into the future.

Friedman now offers his thoughts following the recently completed United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen. While he says that the "Earth Day" approach accomplished some goals, we need to shift more into what he calls and "Earth Race" approach.

The Earth Race

He suggests:

Therefore, the goal of Earth Racers is to focus on getting the U.S. Senate to pass an energy bill, with a long-term price on carbon that will really stimulate America to become the world leader in clean-tech. If we lead by example, more people will follow us by emulation than by compulsion of some U.N. treaty.

He says that:

In the cold war, we had the space race: who could be the first to put a man on the moon. Only two countries competed, and there could be only one winner. Today, we need the Earth Race: who can be the first to invent the most clean technologies so men and women can live safely here on Earth. [my emphasis added]

He suggests that what President Obama should have done in Copenhagen is to:

"...look China’s prime minister in the eye and say: “I am going to get our Senate to pass an energy bill with a price on carbon so we can clean your clock in clean-tech. This is my moon shot. Game on.”

An interesting concept. The US should unilaterally say, hey, we're going to beat your pants off in this Earth Race, coming up with new energy technologies that leave you (China) in the dust, and you (OPEC oil barons) wondering what you're going to do with your oil, and you (Russia) doing whatever it is that you are doing today, begging us to share the new technology with you. Which we will do....for a price.

So, anyone think this will work?